| Literature DB >> 35035267 |
Arushi Jain1, Annavarapu Chandra Sekhara Rao1, Praphula Kumar Jain1, Ajith Abraham2,3.
Abstract
In the current world, the disorders occurring in dermatological images are among the foremost widespread diseases. Despite being common, its identification is tremendously hard because of the complexities like skin tone and color variation due to the presence of hair regions. Therefore the type of skin disease prediction is not accurately achieved in many pieces of research. To deal with mentioned concerns, a novel optimal probability-based deep neural network is proposed to assist medical professionals in appropriately diagnosing the type of skin disease. Initially, the input dataset is fed into the pre-processing stage, which helps to remove unwanted contents in the image. Afterward, features extracted for all the pre-processed images are subjected to the proposed Optimal Probability-Based Deep Neural Network (OP-DNN) for the training process. This classification algorithm classifies incoming clinical images as different skin diseases with the help of probability values. While learning OP-DNN, it is essential to determine the optimal weight values for reducing the training error. For optimizing weight in OP-DNN structure, an optimization approach is implemented in this research. For that, whale optimization is utilized because it works faster than other methods. The proposed multi-type skin disease prediction model is implemented in MatLab software and achieved 95% of accuracy, 0.97 of specificity, and 0.91 of sensitivity. This exposes the superiority of the proposed multi-type skin disease prediction model using an effective OP-DNN based feature extraction approach to attain a high accuracy rate and also it predict several kinds of skin disease than the previous models, which can protect the patients survives as well as can assist the physicians in making a decision certainly.Entities:
Keywords: Multi-type skin diseases prediction; Optimal probability-based deep neural network; Whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35035267 PMCID: PMC8752183 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-021-11823-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Parameters used in the proposed model
| Parameters | Description |
|---|---|
( | The output of the median filter the width of the input image total number of the pixels image pixel Mean Standard deviation Skewness the grey level variance among adjacent pixels the distribution probability of grey level variance among adjacent pixels contrast correlation value of the mean of elements sum in every column in the square the mean value of elements summation in each row the sum of the standard deviation of elements entropy rate the energy value bias with a constant value amount of input and hidden neurons in the foremost hidden layer the weight interconnected at the shape of logarithmic spiral the sequence of repetitions linearly the supposed to take value from [−1, 1] the current position |
Fig. 1Overall architecture of proposed research
Fig. 2Proposed OP based Deep Neural Network Architecture
Fig. 3Layout of the proposed optimization algorithm
Execution parameters of the proposed method
| No | Algorithm | Parameters | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WOA | Population Size | 50 |
| 2 | Iteration | 100 | |
| 3 | Dimension | 1 | |
| 4 | Probability Function | 0.5 | |
| 5 | Exection time (second) | 75 |
Fig. 4Sample input images
Overall comparison table for proposed and existing techniques with different measures
| Measures | Existing KNN classifier | Existing ANN classifier | Proposed OP-DNN Classifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.57818 | 0.59636 | 0.91273 |
| Specificity | 0.85939 | 0.86545 | 0.97091 |
| Accuracy | 0.78909 | 0.79818 | 0.95636 |
| FPR | 0.14061 | 0.13455 | 0.029091 |
| FNR | 0.42182 | 0.40364 | 0.087273 |
| PPV | 0.57818 | 0.59636 | 0.91273 |
| NPV | 0.85939 | 0.86545 | 0.97091 |
Fig. 5Sensitivity acquired for proposed and existing techniques
Fig. 6Comparison plot for specificity measure
Fig. 7Obtained accuracy for proposed and existing algorithms
Fig. 8Outcome for other measures
Fig. 9Error rate achieved by proposed and existing techniques
Comparison of performance metrics between the proposed and existing techniques
| Techniques | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|
| OP-DNN (Proposed) | 95 | 92 | 93 |
| KNN | 78 | 82.6 | 85.7 |
| Naive Bayes | 67.6 | 65.3 | 67.5 |
| Random Forest (RF) | 84.8 | 82.4 | 84.8 |
| MLP | 91.6 | 86.9 | 91.6 |
| CNN | 93.8 | 90.2 | 92.2 |
| LSTM | 89.3 | 87.6 | 88.5 |
Fig. 10Convergence Graph among the Proposed and the Existing Techniques
Comparison of Execution Time for Trained datasets between the proposed and existing techniques
| Optimizations techniques | Execution Time for Trained Datasets (seconds) |
|---|---|
| Adam | 102 |
| Rmsprop | 108 |
| Sgd | 114 |
| Traditional Back propagation | 100 |
| firefly algorithm | 107 |
| Bat algorithm | 132 |
| Harris Hawks Optimization | 120 |
| Proposed (WOA) | 75 |